D&D 5E Why Do Higher Levels Get Less Play?

[GrimCo]

Currently level 7. Since September iirc.

Message today. Kid and myself soccer trials. 2/5 players lol.

Other group new player. Weeknight sessions are short. Response "can you play weekends". "No I walk".

Another player. "In a month I'm leaving the country for 3 months".

Real reason high level play is rare.

Our primary DM- 6 weeks of business trips. He returned, one of the players went to big industry expo. I'm 1 week every month in another country for next 8-12 months. Add to that half of us have kindergarden age kids and it's flue sesson ( in general, kindergardens are Papa Nurgle's playground), other half have elementary school kids. In short, life happens, sessions get canceled and you are lucky if you squeeze 20-30 sessions per year.

Even back in college days, come exam season, sessions stop. Come summer brake, everyone goes to seaside, seasons stop. We played September till December, then February till May, mid June to mi July and that was it.

 

[Minigiant]

Currently level 7. Since September iirc.

Message today. Kid and myself soccer trials. 2/5 players lol.

Other group new player. Weeknight sessions are short. Response "can you play weekends". "No I walk".

Another player. "In a month I'm leaving the country for 3 months".

Real reason high level play is rare.

You could start at higher levels.

The problem is creating and understanding a high level PC takes too long.

Unless like I said the point is to just play "I attack twice! FIREBALL!! I attack and Healing Word." drunken play.

 

[pemerton]

I agree with the first two points and disagree with the last. As GM I don't need to or want to manage how play unfolds or manipulate my players. It doesn't matter to me how or what they pursue, we work together to figure out motivation and if the scenarios I'm prepping aren't engaging then I need to change what I'm doing and work with my players to figure out what works. I've run games to level 20 and while I've had to adjust to what the players decide more times than I can count I've never had them break the campaign by overcoming an obstacle in a way I didn't anticipate.

My post was suggesting some reasons that I think explain why lots of D&D players don't play to high levels.

If you're playing to high levels, then I wouldn't expect you to experience those reasons.

For me, I enjoy high level play but it often cannot be squared within the same setting as low level play.

The main problem, I see, with high level play in modern (3.5 and beyond) D&D is that you need a setting with assumptions that support a high fantasy setting with magical cities etc and with lots of other high level people.

If you start at 1st level in a small village with low tech, it is very difficult to see that same world with level 12+ characters. So either the PCs are fantastical abnormalities or there are other high level folks and then how does your setting accommodate what they can do.

<snip>

For me, the only way to run high level games in the settings I prefer is to take the players to the planes or other zones that allow for high level play that does not break the world or setting or throw threats from outside the world or gods to challenge them that may make sense.

You almost need to play in something like Eberron or FR in order to make high level play even make sense.

I've used a few different approaches to high level play, and setting, in Rolemaster and D&D.

I've had high level PCs integrated into power structures in the mortal world - eg as powerful actors in the government and politics of the Great Kingdom and Rel Astra (in the WoG), comparable to (say) Iuz's Boneheart. I've had high level PCs play crucial roles in the non-mortal world, dealing with spirit lords and dead gods and the like. And in 4e D&D, which has the most gonzo fiction for its high level characters, the PCs have killed gods, become gods, changed the nature of the mortal realm, upended the cosmos, etc.

 

[Zardnaar]

You could start at higher levels.

The problem is creating and understanding a high level PC takes too long.

Unless like I said the point is to just play "I attack twice! FIREBALL!! I attack and Healing Word." drunken play.

Most of my players a new or new to 5E. I've seen a few flub it at level 7.

Realistically you need.
1. Availability
2. Keen players that turn up evey session/ 75%+ attendance
3. Experienced players
4. Keep the powergaming within acceptable limits.
5. Experience and keen DM that fits 1-4.

That's before you consider the edition.

 

[Belen]

I've had high level PCs integrated into power structures in the mortal world - eg as powerful actors in the government and politics of the Great Kingdom and Rel Astra (in the WoG), comparable to (say) Iuz's Boneheart. I've had high level PCs play crucial roles in the non-mortal world, dealing with spirit lords and dead gods and the like. And in 4e D&D, which has the most gonzo fiction for its high level characters, the PCs have killed gods, become gods, changed the nature of the mortal realm, upended the cosmos, etc.

I have done the same since 3.5 although I routinely hit high level play in 2e/3.0 without the same issues that seem to pop up now.

 

[Minigiant]

Most of my players a new or new to 5E. I've seen a few flub it at level 7.

Realistically you need.
1. Availability
2. Keen players that turn up evey session/ 75%+ attendance
3. Experienced players
4. Keep the powergaming within acceptable limits.
5. Experience and keen DM that fits 1-4.

That's before you consider the edition.

You're not getting what I'm saying.

There is nothing stopping you from starting a campaign at level 10.

The reason why people don't do it is because creating a level 10 character is a lot more time-consuming and then understanding how your level 10 character works and getting how that character is capabilities interact with the world also takes a long time. And by the time you do that and learn your character you typically level up and have to relearn a lot more.

Because the system that 5E was designed around It's complex for almost every single character build. They purposely only put effort into making one character build simple.

There is literally only one simple character build at level 10 and it's also was very boring in 2014 version and it's only slightly not boring in the 2024 version.

This is not like 4e or 13th age where once you did the math, understanding and running your PC at high levels was easy as long as you didn't purposely pick the most complex powers (which were mostly in supplements and later core books).

Daggerheart and Draw Steel seem to be following suit where the game is designed to stop at a certain level of complexity and rely on replacement over compounding.

 

[Zardnaar]

You're not getting what I'm saying.

There is nothing stopping you from starting a campaign at level 10.

The reason why people don't do it is because creating a level 10 character is a lot more time-consuming and then understanding how your level 10 character works and getting how that character is capabilities interact with the world also takes a long time. And by the time you do that and learn your character you typically level up and have to relearn a lot more.

Because the system that 5E was designed around It's complex for almost every single character build. They purposely only put effort into making one character build simple.

There is literally only one simple character build at level 10 and it's also was very boring in 2014 version and it's only slightly not boring in the 2024 version.

This is not like 4e or 13th age where once you did the math, understanding and running your PC at high levels was easy as long as you didn't purposely pick the most complex powers (which were mostly in supplements and later core books).

Daggerheart and Draw Steel seem to be following suit where the game is designed to stop at a certain level of complexity and rely on replacement over compounding.

I'm getting it. I'm saying I've seen newer players struggle with level 7 let alone 10.

Sure I could start at level 10 but I'm expecting a disaster.

They're all either rusty or inexperienced. I've got 1 very experienced player and1 veteran player over 3 groups. The veteran likes the champion.

I has 1 campaign fall apart because two for the funnies type players annoyed the other 4 (including the DM as one of 4).

By funsies I mean melee druids who weren't moon druids and a very badly played warlock built wrong.

Otherwise I'm looking at a couple of smarter players or veterans of AD&D who recently started playing after 20 odd years. Last played 2002 or the 90s.

 

[Aldarc]

Well, for my part I think it's pretty obvious why many people don't play high level D&D:

* Most games start at low levels, and so it takes too long to level up relative to how long people remain interested in a particular campaign/party/PC/playgroup;​

​

* The PC builds get more complicated, especially spell-casters;​

​

* Most GMs rely heavily on GM authority over the fiction to manage how play unfolds and to control the scenarios they are running, and at high level it becomes increasingly hard to maintain that authority - especially because of how high-level D&D spells interface with the fiction (in this thread, see both @Minigiant's recent posts, and @Zardnaar's post about "needing to be paid" for the effort of GMing high-level D&D);​

​

* Various special cases of the previous point: fetch-quests for high-level PCs make less sense; dungeons for high-level PCs don't work as well (eg because walls are less constraining, the traps and creatures get more absurd, etc); high-level PCs are harder for the GM to "prompt" or "manipulate" through scenarios via threats and/or inducements, because of their greater capabilities and self-reliance; etc.​

I think the relative lack of modules and monsters is perhaps a contributing factor, but also is an effect as much as a cause.

I don't think that the reason for not playing high level D&D is because all the mythic scenarios that might be played out at high level are being played by groups who have restatted all that sort of stuff for mid-level PCs.

I would also add to your excellent list of reasons my earlier point from here: players got what they want.

My Two Cents:

There are two tragedies in life—not getting what you want, and getting it.

In terms of players: By the levels that most D&D 5e campaigns end, players will generally have what they want in terms of their character build or character fantasy. Ironically, I think that this actually contributes to killing long-term interest and investment in the game. Their build comes online and their interest then peters out. Part of the reason may be because they just wanted to see how their build plays. It may also be because they have sufficiently explored their character and/or character concept. It may be that their build or PCs of these levels have enough tools to trivialize encounters.

This is the say that the players strive to reach what they want with their PC's build or concept and then once they achieve it, their interest fades and they feel kind of done.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm getting it. I'm saying I've seen newer players struggle with level 7 let alone 10

But that's my point.

Past level 3, 5e PCs are complex. And it takes all those sessions for most to learn their PCs. If they ever do learn.

For all of 1e, 2e, 3e, and 5e, the discussion to make a PC easy to learn and play was ONLY put on the most basic warrior. Past level 2, ease of play and beginner friendliness is thrown out the window for nerd pride and elitism.

 

[Zardnaar]

But that's my point.

Past level 3, 5e PCs are complex. And it takes all those sessions for most to learn their PCs. If they ever do learn.

For all of 1e, 2e, 3e, and 5e, the discussion to make a PC easy to learn and play was ONLY put on the most basic warrior. Past level 2, ease of play and beginner friendliness is thrown out the window for nerd pride and elitism.

I would include 4E there as well tbh.

Feats and powers like that are not newbie friendly lol.